Why does Socialism seem to lead to the decline of religion?


Guest mormonmusic
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 249
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We cant expect government to regulate anything properly any more than we can expect the owners of business to care much about the people who work for them.

Without an improvement in human nature we will manage to mess up any system including a perfect one.

I think so as well.:cool:

Edited by JohnnyRudick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for commenting on specific items I have mentioned. I may not completely disagree with your comments but please expound on a few.

In what way do you see property as not completely private under the UO?

Has to do with stewardship. The order pools together property and resources, assigning to each a stewardshipaccording to their needs and abilities. Any surplus is redistributed according to the needs of the group. So while others have no right to take from someone's stewardship just like that, this isn't exactly the classic idea of private property.

How do you see individuals economic standing divided by needs and wants as compatible with communism?

The idea of communism isn't to have all starve alike. The community redistributes resource and property among the members. Naturally, a family of six will need more than a family of two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we expect the government to legislate morality and not go berserk in the process?

Should government repeal its laws against murder? If it did, the vast majority wouldn't go on a killing spree, but those who did would be free to do so again and again. You can't have any sort of government framework that doesn't legislate morality to some degree or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like your sentiments.

But I do believe this brings us back to the old question.

Can we expect the government to legislate morality and not go berserk in the process?

I would argue that it has gone berserk when it doesn't. As when the government decides pornography is free speech, killing unborn children is a right of privacy, and living homeless and meth addicted is individual freedom.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has to do with stewardship. The order pools together property and resources, assigning to each a stewardship according to their needs and abilities. Any surplus is redistributed according to the needs of the group. So while others have no right to take from someone's stewardship just like that, this isn't exactly the classic idea of private property.

I agree with you that there is an initial consecration and stewardship. After that initial distribution the person owns the land and he may do with it as he will. So yes the primary difference has to do with the initial distribution. The church however is not the owner so this differs quite a bit from most forms of communism where a central group owns the property.

There is also distribution of stores to the poor. I see it very much like the church welfare system today.

The idea of communism isn't to have all starve alike. The community redistributes resource and property among the members. Naturally, a family of six will need more than a family of two.

Of course a family of six would have more. However, in almost all cases communism doesn't consider giving a person more based on individual want.

At the end of the day I see it as more of a modification of capitalism then of communism. But as long as the ideas are understood.

Edited by james12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt, no doubt.

And that's a major problem in any real, meaningful discussion between the left and right.

Actually, I'm not even sure on this and I'm totally serious about this next question:

When the 'SOCIALIST!' cry goes out against something that clearly isn't evil, does it mean 'I disagree with this particular expenditure. I think the downsides of this particular expenditure outweigh the good it will do' or is it said with the same venom as, 'King Barak' or 'Barack HUSSEIN Obama!'?

Depending on what the "CRY" is?

In every predicaments is a solution

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." The Delcaration of Independence

America has become accustomed to evil morals and injustices which has diluted the "American Ideal". Many are lost in dispair that they do not have hope, whereas, being a member of the Church Of Jesus Christ I've been blessed with the knowledge that I am not alone.

https://www.lds.org/youth/video/dare-to-stand-alone?lang=eng

Being a member of the Church prepared me to be steadfast to people who challenges me as an individual whether it's regarding my knowledge and faith. The need to be accepted is a selfish movement that seeks for only personal gain. Our heavenly fathers law is above mens own understanding that we cannot interpret unless we've seeked in him for the solutions through Jesus Christ, prayer, and reading the scriptures. The government was only made to distribute order amongst us that is why it's limited by us. To conform with socialism conflicts with our own individual conscience. Disabling us from the ability to have free agency, to live freely by our own discretion. The more I contemplate on being a member of the church of Jesus Christ Of These Latter-days the more I'm grateful.

13. In sum, the word "equal" in the Declaration of Independence means, first, spiritual equality (equality in the sight of God) and, second, equality in the sight of Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution)--primarily equality in Freedom from Government-over-man.

Now when a socialist cries, does that socialist motives as to why they cry is injustice because of a transient cause?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not even going to bother asking if you are serious. The sad thing is you probably are.

I dont really understand the thinking either. On the other hand I just dont understand the attachment people have to material things either. None of it is ours. Its all Gods. We are only stewards. It is up to us to decide if things are ours or Gods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would argue that it has gone berserk when it doesn't. As when the government decides pornography is free speech, killing unborn children is a right of privacy, and living homeless and meth addicted is individual freedom.

I think you have supported my point.

When the State tries to legislate morality it decides what is moral and what is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you that there is an initial consecration and stewardship. After that initial distribution the person owns the land and he may do with it as he will. So yes the primary difference has to do with the initial distribution. The church however is not the owner so this differs quite a bit from most forms of communism where a central group owns the property.

D&C 104:67-75 describes ongoing redistributions. As soon as any money is made by anyone it is placed in the common fund and members can only access it through a treasurer, after showing that they do need such-and-such an amount for such-and-such a purpose.

There is also distribution of stores to the poor. I see it very much like the church welfare system today.

The church welfare system is a faint echo of it.

Of course a family of six would have more. However, in almost all cases communism doesn't consider giving a person more based on individual want.

At the end of the day I see it as more of a modification of capitalism then of communism. But as long as the ideas are understood.

Really? Even in the Soviet Union, which was far from reaching communism, to give just one example, the support issued varied according to the number of people in the family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you have supported my point.

When the State tries to legislate morality it decides what is moral and what is not.

To the contrary. All of the examples that I gave were the result of years of successful court litigation and legislative action, to remove the state from the morality business and the defence of the common good and put in it's place the evil idea that they state aught to just stick to arbitrating "rights". Hence, if I want to produce pornography, kill my unborn child, use drugs, or harass people on the sidewalk for money to pay for it, it is my "right" to do so as the State no longer has any business telling me how to live.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then there are people like me who think we should have a single-payer system. But I don't think healthcare is a right. I think the idea that healthcare is a right is absurd. What I do believe is that universal access to health care is good public policy. With that assumption, there's a valid debate to be had about what the best way to implement that public policy is, whether it be single payer of free market.

I don't want to go with a single-payer system. The main reason is because the only way that would succeed in the USA is if we regulate healthy living.

What I prefer is the exact thing that is implemented in Masachussets with a few changes I'd like to see. Currently, the State subsidizes basic health insurance for people under a certain income level. This is a zero-sum policy because as it stands right now, hospitals are required to cover the expense of people who can't afford care. Hence, they jack up the price of everything to cover that expense, thereby, causing those who can afford the care to pay more than they had to. Instead, a basic health insurance mandate for all citizens is made and subsidies given to those who can't afford it. The citizens can choose whichever insurance they want to carry as long as it passes minimum State requirements. The only change I want to do to this program is to give the same subsidy to everybody regardless of income. This prevents the government from waging class wars during election cycles.

I also like the platform of one of the Presidential Candidates that separate health insurance from employment. Health insurance is not the responsibility of your place of work. It can be a perk, sure. But that should be the end of it.

And then, we need to remove restrictions that prevent health insurance from competing across State lines. And lastly, we need to do a lot of Tort Reform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D&C 104:67-75 describes ongoing redistributions. As soon as any money is made by anyone it is placed in the common fund and members can only access it through a treasurer, after showing that they do need such-and-such an amount for such-and-such a purpose.

Not quite. The money placed in the Treasury is only that which is made "by improving upon the properties". In other words money only goes into the treasury if it is in excess of what is needed to maintain one's family and stewardship (ie. profit). Yet once in the treasury it is then passed back to another individual to aid in his stewardship. Thus even in this case I do not see the church owning all the money or property. It is given to individuals.

In 1843 Joseph wrote: “I preached on the stand about one hour on the 2nd chapter of Acts, designing to show the folly of common stock [holding property in common]. In Nauvoo, everyone is steward over his own.” (History of the Church, 6:37–38) The Communist Manifesto was not published until 1848 so this clearly has little to do with a contrast to corrupt versions of Communism.

Really? Even in the Soviet Union, which was far from reaching communism, to give just one example, the support issued varied according to the number of people in the family.

But not according to want.

I don't feel the brethren were misrepresenting Communism. President Lee once directly contrasted both Socialism and Communism to the United Order.

There are some things of which I am sure, and that is that contrary to the belief and mistaken ideas of some of our people, the United Order will not be a Socialistic or Communistic set-up: it will be something distinctive and yet will be more capitalistic in its nature than either Socialism or Communism, in that private ownership and individual responsibility will be maintained. (October, 1941, General Conference)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

There are some things of which I am sure, and that is that contrary to the belief and mistaken ideas of some of our people, the United Order will not be a Socialistic or Communistic set-up: it will be something distinctive and yet will be more capitalistic in its nature than either Socialism or Communism, in that private ownership and individual responsibility will be maintained. (October, 1941, General Conference)

But was he prophet then? I think not. He may well be right, or not, but he was not a prophet at the time.

We would be better to not call a perfect system anything but Gods plan. It does not matter if its communism, socialist, anarchy or whatever. Not if it is a good plan or part of a good plan that we get from God.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad thing is socialism can be perverted!!! Hence, Masses and Mainstream. Socialism has no foundation for law, principles and morals but only exploitation.

This is what Howard Fast said: “In Russia, we have socialism without democracy. We have socialism without trial by jury, habeas corpus or ... protection against the abuse of confession by torture. We have socialism without civil liberty ... We have socialism without public avenues of protest. We have socialism without equality for minorities. We have socialism without any right of free artistic creation. In so many words, we have socialism without morality.”

And you wonder why socialism seems to lead to the decline of religion.

My point is that socialism, capitalism, communism will never be the solution, testified through history.

The church teaches us to adhere to Jesus Christ examples and to repent through him. We're taught to do unto others as we would want done unto ourselves. Unfortunately, the united states is incompetent to stand up for righteousness that is why there is a chosen few who can lead and administer the gospel amongst everyone. We are taught wickedness never was happiness and that cleanliness is next to godliness. Solution starts with us as a member of "The Church Of Jesus Christ Of These Latter-days" to be uplifting, an example, do good deeds that can influence the rise of heavenly fathers nation.

Solution:

John 3:1-36

1There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

2The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

9Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

10Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

11Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

12If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

14¶And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16¶For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18¶He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20For every one that doeth evilhateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21But he that doethtruth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

22¶After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judæa; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

23¶And John also was baptizing in Ænon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

24For John was not yet cast into prison.

25¶Then there arose a question between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purifying.

26And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.

27John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.

28Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.

29He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

30He must increase, but I must decrease.

31He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.

32And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony.

33He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true.

34For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

35The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

36He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the contrary. All of the examples that I gave were the result of years of successful court litigation and legislative action, to remove the state from the morality business and the defence of the common good and put in it's place the evil idea that they state aught to just stick to arbitrating "rights". Hence, if I want to produce pornography, kill my unborn child, use drugs, or harass people on the sidewalk for money to pay for it, it is my "right" to do so as the State no longer has any business telling me how to live.

The state has decided it is moral to kill your unborn child and maybe even your young child if that is your desire and it is "right" for you. (after all a young child cannot make it without extra help), to view child pornography (as long as you do not possess it) etc. as long as it is "right" for you it is moral for you. We now have morality that fits all as long as you wear blinders. (You see what is moral for one may not be for another.)

It is moral to tolerate and even embrace everyone except those who will not tolerate or embrace everyone. To do that would be immoral.

That is what happens when we have the state deciding what is moral and what is not.

We are having a party and the mad hatter is serving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The state has decided it is moral to kill your unborn child and maybe even your young child if that is your desire and it is "right" for you. (after all a young child cannot make it without extra help), to view child pornography (as long as you do not possess it) etc. as long as it is "right" for you it is moral for you. We now have morality that fits all as long as you wear blinders. (You see what is moral for one may not be for another.)

It is moral to tolerate and even embrace everyone except those who will not tolerate or embrace everyone. To do that would be immoral.

That is what happens when we have the state deciding what is moral and what is not.

We are having a party and the mad hatter is serving.

I think we may be talking past each other. In any event, if the government were to stay out of morality, those who advocate for abortion, pornography, drug use, etc., would be pleased as punch. I say, that has already happened. Your take is that the government is in the "morality business", but is promoting a warped morality. It makes no difference to my argument as in either interpretation, the abortionists, pornographers, and drug users, would still be doing handsprings is the government would get out of enforcing morality all together. That is why it is no surprise when libertarians advocate for those exact "rights" as here from the Libertarian Party Platform...

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology.

We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

That is just a sample of what it means to be a libertarian, to advocate for the removal of the government from individual moral issues. I'm agin' it. :D

Edited by Desertknight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not according to want?

It seems like you have the modern connotation of desire in mind. Take a look at what want used to mean. Search => [word] => want :: 1828 Dictionary :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com

Lets look at the context of the term in other scriptures…

D&C 42:33 “…that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants.” Note the term amply supplied.

D&C 82:17 “And you are to be equal, or in other words, you are to have equal claims on the properties, for the benefit of managing the concerns of your stewardships, every man according to his wants and his needs, inasmuch as his wants are just –“ Why this clarification of the term wants?

However, there is a rather detailed explanation of the process given to Edward Partridge by Joseph Smith concerning the consecration of property and how to reconcile what an individual or family requires versus what should be given to the church.

Concerning the consecration of property:— ... I will tell you that every man must be his own judge how much he should receive and how much he should suffer to remain in the hands of the Bishop. I speak of those who consecrate more than they need for the support of themselves and their families.

The matter of consecration must be done by the mutual consent of both parties; for to give the Bishop power to say how much every man shall have, and he be obliged to comply with the Bishop’s judgment, is giving to the Bishop more power than a king has; and upon the other hand, to let every man say how much he needs, and the Bishop be obliged to comply with his judgment, is to throw Zion into confusion, and make a slave of the Bishop. The fact is, there must be a balance or equilibrium of power, between the Bishop and the people, and thus harmony and good will may be preserved among you.

“Therefore, those persons consecrating property to the Bishop in Zion, and then receiving an inheritance back, must reasonably show to the Bishop that they need as much as they claim. But in case the two parties cannot come to a mutual agreement, the Bishop is to have nothing to do about receiving such consecrations; and the case must be laid before a council of twelve High Priests, the Bishop not being one of the council, but he is to lay the case before them. ( History of the Church, 1:364–65.)

A man has a say in how much property is to be given to the church, he is “his own judge”. And the process is to be administered by “mutual consent”. Only when there are disputes will the matter go to council. Thus an individual’s free will is more of a factor then it is in a communistic society. No large institution determines how much a person keeps. It is a one on one interview between the bishop and the person and the individual has a say as much as does the church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad thing is socialism can be perverted!!!

The sad thing is, anything can be perverted.

Hence, Masses and Mainstream. Socialism has no foundation for law, principles and morals but only exploitation.

Socialism or Stalinism and the civil war it grew from?

This is what Howard Fast said: “In Russia, we have socialism without democracy. We have socialism without trial by jury, habeas corpus or ... protection against the abuse of confession by torture. We have socialism without civil liberty ... We have socialism without public avenues of protest. We have socialism without equality for minorities. We have socialism without any right of free artistic creation. In so many words, we have socialism without morality.”

I agree. Now here is some food for thought.

This confusion of terminology has recently been illustrated by an article of Howard Fast, the well-known writer, who was once awarded the Stalin Prize. For a long time Fast supported what he called “socialism” in the Soviet Union, with his eyes shut. And then Khrushchev’s speech at the Twentieth Congress, and other revelations following that, opened Fast’s eyes, and he doesn’t like what he sees. That is to his credit. But he still calls it “socialism”. In an article in Masses and Mainstream he describes what he had found out about this peculiar “socialism” that had prevailed in the Soviet Union under Stalin and still prevails under Stalin’s successors.

This is what Howard Fast said: “In Russia, we have socialism without democracy. We have socialism without trial by jury, habeas corpus or ... protection against the abuse of confession by torture. We have socialism without civil liberty ... We have socialism without public avenues of protest. We have socialism without equality for minorities. We have socialism without any right of free artistic creation. In so many words, we have socialism without morality.”

These are the words of Howard Fast. I agree with everything he says there, except the preface he gives to all his qualifications—that we have “socialism” without this and that, we have “socialism” without any of the features that a socialist society was supposed to have in the conceptions of the movement before Stalinism. It is as though Fast has discovered different varieties of socialism. Like mushrooms. You go out and pick the right kind and you can cook a tasty dish. But if you gather up the kind commonly known as toadstools and call them mushrooms, you will poison yourself. Stalinist “socialism” is about as close to the real thing as a toadstool is to an edible mushroom.

Now, of course, the Stalinists and their apologists have not created all the confusion in this country about the meaning of socialism, at least not directly. At every step for 30 years, the Stalinist work of befuddlement and demoralisation, of debasing words into their opposite meanings, has been supported by reciprocal action of the same kind by the ruling capitalists and their apologists. They have never failed to take the Stalinists at their word, and to point to the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union, with all of its horrors, and to say: “That is socialism. The American way of life is better.”

It is these people who have given us, as their contribution to sowing confusion in the minds of people, the delightful definition of the capitalist sector of the globe, where the many toil in poverty for the benefit of the few, as “the free world”. And they describe the United States, where the workers have a right to vote every four years, if they don’t move around too much, but have no say about the control of the shop and the factory; where all the means of mass information and communication are monopolised by a few—they describe all that as the ideal democracy, for which the workers should gladly fight and die.

Socialism and Democracy

And you wonder why socialism seems to lead to the decline of religion.

No, I don't wonder. Don't you possibly think you might be placing the cart before the horse? Socialism, with its desire to produce a compassionate and just society, is frequently very appealing to those disillusioned by the excesses of the religions surrounding them. They see those religions saying one thing and doing another. Do you want some sources on the religions in Russia of the early 20th century? Not a teribly pretty picture, sadly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialism allows the government to take control of our freedom and destroy our liberty. This is a way that we can lose our free agency, because we are being forced to act instead of choosing of our own free will. Ultimately, (in my personal opinion), Socialism is a tool of the devil.

The devil wants to control, and he will do so through any person, any government, any idea, any addiction, ANY MEANS. Socialism abandons our natural rights for the sake "of the community" or "for the state" but in reality it is "for man." And what is of man is of the devil.

Additionally, socialism thrives on the "individual" doing everything for the "state" which will ultimately benefit the "community." That means that the "individual" must have complete dedication to the "state" and cannot be distracted from that goal. They cannot let morals, families, friends, etc get in the way. Religion is founded about morals, families, friends, faith, etc and a religious person is devoted to God and then the state comes afterwards. After all, how can an immoral government exist in the presence of a moral society? Another reason: religions is a way of unifying people, and a socialist government doesn't want a unified people under God, they want a unified people under the state.

The only government that is successful in promoting sacred morals and a spiritual society, is a government that allows it citizens to CHOOSE and exercise their free agency. I KNOW that is why the Church was restored in America, because it was a free land where such a Church could grow and develop. Imagine Joseph Smith trying to start up the Church under Stalin, or Mao, or Pol Pot, or Hitler! No.

We learn in D&C that the Constition was manifested through the Founding Fathers by God's inspiration. The Constitution is the exact opposite of Socialism. Church members should not be advocates of Socialism, Communism, Fascism, or any sort of authoritarian government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately, (in my personal opinion), Socialism is a tool of the devil.

Additionally, socialism thrives on the "individual" doing everything for the "state"

The only government that is successful in promoting sacred morals and a spiritual society, is a government that allows it citizens to CHOOSE and exercise their free agency.

Church members should not be advocates of Socialism, Communism, Fascism, or any sort of authoritarian government.

Capitalism, as we have it now, thrives on the individual doing everything for the company.

Church members should not be advocates of Capitalism, Fascism, or any sort of authoritarianism government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share